[Piglit] [PATCH 31/35] arb_gpu_shader5: Add support for testing spirv with XFB streams

Alejandro Piñeiro apinheiro at igalia.com
Mon Aug 20 09:49:06 UTC 2018


On 20/08/18 04:11, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On 18/08/18 19:30, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote:
>> On 18/08/18 06:36, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>>> On 18/08/18 14:32, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>>>> Won't this cause shader runner to needlessly parse the .shader_test
>>>> file?
>>
>> True, good point. In any case, as the test lacks a [test] section, full
>> shader.py runs would just check if the test links (assuming that
>> ARB_gl_spirv are available). Having said so ...
>>
>>>
>>> The file extension is also confusing. Maybe we should name these type
>>> of files .shader_source or something similar rather than
>>> .shader_test ???
>>
>> ... this makes sense. That name fits better, and would avoid the
>> previous issue. As that would be a small change, I will make the change
>> locally, while I wait for the review of the other patches.
>
> I've skimmed over most of the series and I didn't see anything other
> than this that I had issue with. It's not very common to get a full
> review for a piglit series. The general rule is once its been on the
> list for a few weeks it's usually ok to push. After all it's better to
> have wrong tests that can be fixed later than to have no tests at all.
>
> I understand the external dependency might have stopped you from just
> pushing but since its an optional dependency it's fine IMO.

Yes, exactly, that was the only reason I didn't push it yet. FWIW, I was
expecting it to be somewhat controversial. But I always tend to be on
the pessimistic/conservative side of things.

>
> Anyway for the series feel free to add:
>
> Acked-by: Timothy Arceri <tarceri at itsqueeze.com>

Ok, thank you very much.

As the series was around several weeks, I think that I will push it as
it is. If the optional dependency causes some issues, at least pushing
it would get the attention of people.

BR






More information about the Piglit mailing list